TMI Blog1968 (6) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce whether such sales fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of section 3 shall be levied and collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in subsection (3) in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced." 2.. In State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231., it was held after referring to the relevant sections of that Act: "The turnover of the respondents sought to be taxed arises out of transactions of sale of handloom and powerloom cloth effected by them in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, sale of these goods was liable to tax under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold the goods in inter-State sale, no tax can be levied on the turnover of the sales under the Central Sales Tax Act in the light of the ruling referred to above. That the tax was illegally levied is not disputed by the respondents. 3.. What is contended for on behalf of the respondents is that no application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus for refund of the tax already collected under these orders would lie. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the ruling in Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1967] 19 S.T.C. 123; 1967 K.L.T. 657.In that case, the Indore Industrial Tax Act, 1957, imposed industrial tax on cotton mills. The appellant before the Supreme Court was the managing proprietor of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble because a claim for such a refund could always be made in a suit against the authority which illegally collected the money as tax; that in the absence of statutory provision whereby the tax realised had to be refunded when the appellate authority set aside the assessments, no duty was cast on the State to refund the amount it had realised which was subsequently found by the appellate authority to be not in accordance with law. It was also held that the mere order of the appellate authority that the tax collected was not authorised by any law was not a decision to the effect that the State was to return the amount to the assessee ; nor could it be taken to amount to a law making it incumbent on the State to refund the amount and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal[1964] 15 S.T.C. 450; A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1006.). In this view of the matter it was the duty of the State to investigate the facts when the mistake was brought to its notice and to make a refund if the mistake was proved and the claim was made within the period of limitation." In Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa[1961] 12 S.T.C. 816., the same question was considered and it was held that a liability to refund can be enforced by a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai(3), the Supreme Court held that a direction for a refund can be made in a proceeding under Article 226, subject to certain conditions, one of them being that the application should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
